XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: bowman@montana.com   
      
   On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 05:57:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-01-05, rbowman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 19:41:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-04, Niklas Karlsson  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-04, Peter Flass  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I look at some code and wonder "how the heck has this ever worked?",   
   >>>>> but the answer is that no one ever hit that combination of things   
   >>>>> before, or used that option.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's certainly the sensible explanation, but I've had scenarios   
   >>>> like that, even with my own code from the past, where I could swear   
   >>>> up and down that I myself had successfully used that code in the   
   >>>> exact scenario that would obviously break.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yup.  Sounds like a Schrodinbug.  It should have never worked, but it   
   >>> does until you look at it - and then it never works again.   
   >>   
   >> Conversely, it fails until you log a debug statement to see what's   
   >> going on and it works.  I'd never, never just leave the debug in place,   
   >> no siree.   
   >   
   > Unless the customer is screaming for a fix RIGHT NOW.   
   >   
   > But I'd go back and try to track it down once he's pacified.   
      
   It's been a day or three but I think I did. iirc it also had the charming   
   feature of only manifesting in the Windows build, not in Linux where I had   
   valgrind and electric fence.   
      
   Another mystery is why memory debuggers on Windows are expensive and   
   barely usable. We had a Purify license but configuring the instrumentation   
   was such a hassle it was rarely used. When the license came up for renewal   
   nobody spoke up to keep it. BoundsChecker reportedly is even worse.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)